D&D 5E Shield Master vs Two Weapon Fighting on a rogue

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW:

So, in the case of the halfling, if he has to move out from "cover" or being hidden in order to attack, he isn't hidden anymore and won't have advantage on the attack.

 

[Bacon Bits]

1) it IS in Sage Advice.

There's like 20 tweets on that link. This one looks like the most relevant:


But that doesn't seem to justify your position.

And this one seems to support @Oofta's argument that the DM can rule otherwise:


For the most part, tweets about hiding are only about whether or not you can attempt to hide in the first place, and do not establish how effective it is to take the hide action when observed while entering cover or when repeatedly hiding in the exact same spot.

However, Jeremy Crawford's Twitter account is no longer an official rules channel. The Sage Advice Compendium, which is the official channel, says that very clearly on the first page.

The Sage Advice Compendium does say this:

Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed?
The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”

However, this still doesn't detail how the DM should rule about repeat hiding in the same spot. I have no problem with a Rogue being tricky in combat, dashing behind different people and disappearing from view from most of them by hiding with Naturally Stealthy. When the same character stands behind one character and hides, and then next round leans out, shoots, and hides again without moving, and plans to do the same thing on subsequent turns expecting the same results, then my credulity is stretched fairly thin. Even if the character were concealed by improved invisibility, remaining in the same spot and making the same attack is going to get quite predictable.

 

[NotAYakk]

However, this still doesn't detail how the DM should rule about repeat hiding in the same spot. I have no problem with a Rogue being tricky in combat, dashing behind different people and disappearing from view from most of them by hiding with Naturally Stealthy. When the same character stands behind one character and hides, and then next round leans out, shoots, and hides again without moving, and plans to do the same thing on subsequent turns expecting the same results, then my credulity is stretched fairly thin. Even if the character were concealed by improved invisibility, remaining in the same spot and making the same attack is going to get quite predictable.

Try fighting someone invisible swinging a sword at you, or dodging an arrow when you cannot see where someone is aiming or going to shoot.

"I know where you are" and "I can see what you are doing" are two separate things in 5e.

Hiding successfully makes someone not be able to see what they are doing. It also makes them unable to detect where they are, except as far as they can use logic to do so. The advantage-to-hit benefits of hiding, however, do not rely on "I don't know where they are". They rely on "unseen attackers".

The halfling ducks behind another PC and disappears from your view. You can't see them. If you want to see them, you have to run around that PC, or burn an action, or beat their stealth roll.

Similarly for the elf. They fade away, invisible, in the natural foliage. You can try to pierce the camouflage ... with an action.

In patchy fog, heavy rain or snow, an elf rogue can bonus action disappear right next to you, then stab you with a sword. They disappear so well they could walk away and you wouldn't notice, or they can use their disappearance to stick a sword in your gut.

Superhuman? Yes, quite explicitly so. Doubly superhuman even. We have the rogue, able to hide as a bonus action, and the wood elf, able to fade into natural light obscurement.

 

[Oofta]

Try fighting someone invisible swinging a sword at you, or dodging an arrow when you cannot see where someone is aiming or going to shoot.

"I know where you are" and "I can see what you are doing" are two separate things in 5e.

Hiding successfully makes someone not be able to see what they are doing. It also makes them unable to detect where they are, except as far as they can use logic to do so. The advantage-to-hit benefits of hiding, however, do not rely on "I don't know where they are". They rely on "unseen attackers".

The halfling ducks behind another PC and disappears from your view. You can't see them. If you want to see them, you have to run around that PC, or burn an action, or beat their stealth roll.

Similarly for the elf. They fade away, invisible, in the natural foliage. You can try to pierce the camouflage ... with an action.

In patchy fog, heavy rain or snow, an elf rogue can bonus action disappear right next to you, then stab you with a sword. They disappear so well they could walk away and you wouldn't notice, or they can use their disappearance to stick a sword in your gut.

Superhuman? Yes, quite explicitly so. Doubly superhuman even. We have the rogue, able to hide as a bonus action, and the wood elf, able to fade into natural light obscurement.

For invisibility, if you can't be seen you get advantage to attack. Others may or may not know where you are.

But the halfling has to leave cover in order to attack which is the point. The target may be distracted or not paying close enough attention to notice the halfling, but that's the DM's call.

 

[Mistwell]

I never said you couldn't raise it

You did appear to be saying I should not even be raising the topic.

Me: "Seems legit to raise, "lead rules person at WOTC says your rogue can already attack with advantage without even needing a feat" in this thread, doesn't it?"
You: "Barring errata, no."

If it's not your thing, it's not your thing and that's fine. I was not advocating that you should use Crawford's ruling. But I thought the guy who started the thread might indeed want to know about it.

 

[Mistwell]

The halfling can be hidden behind someone and cannot be directly targeted. That doesn't mean the enemy forgets they exist. Hiding doesn't cause short term memory loss.

That actually IS covered in the Sage Advice:

Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”

We're clearly in "supernatural" territory here. Of course a DM can rule against it. And of course a DM can rule in favor of it. But it's not as clear cut as you appear to be making it out to be.

 

[Oofta]

You did appear to be saying I should not even be raising the topic.

Me: "Seems legit to raise, "lead rules person at WOTC says your rogue can already attack with advantage without even needing a feat" in this thread, doesn't it?"
You: "Barring errata, no."

If it's not your thing, it's not your thing and that's fine. I was not advocating that you should use Crawford's ruling. But I thought the guy who started the thread might indeed want to know about it.

Dude, I don't know what your issue is. It's not official errata so it's up to the DM to decide whether they take this particular set of tweets into account when making a decision.

That's all. Have a good one.

 

[Mistwell]

There's like 20 tweets on that link. This one looks like the most relevant:

The "run out into the open" ruling is relevant, but these others are equally relevant to us:

Q: "Issue that came up most often at Winter Fantasy was rogues wanting to always hide around corner, next end move out and attack hidden. "
A: "That's a legitimate use of Cunning Action. "

Q: "my main problem is can a rogue attack with advantage thanks to hiding. "
A: "Yes"

Q: "say if the rogue has to come from behind corner/tree/cover to get a line of sight, that's ok? "
A: "Yes"

The way we've read this combination of answers along with "running out in the open" rulings is you can "pop out" (move) one square from hiding to attack (melee or ranged) and gain advantage, but if you have to "run out" away from your cover to "the open" beyond an adjacent space you lose the effect of being hidden.

This is sort of a "pop out and attack" vs "run out in the open and attack" distinction. It's the way we've made the "move out and attack hidden" ruling and the "run out into the open" not mutually exclusive rulings. Because as they are written, I don't see how you could reconcile them easily otherwise. Do you?

He's clearly saying there are circumstances where you can come out from being hidden and attack with advantage due to being hidden, and I have no idea what rule would support "but only from range and not melee" as the rules do not make any such distinction. You should be able to see someone 10' away from with a crossbow as easily as someone 10' away from you with a glaive or 5' away with a short sword, and he doesn't cite any rule that makes a distinction like that.

So how do you reconcile those two rulings without the "pop out" interpretation we use?

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is sort of a "pop out and attack" vs "run out in the open and attack" distinction. It's the way we've made the "move out and attack hidden" ruling and the "run out into the open" not mutually exclusive rulings. Because as they are written, I don't see how you could reconcile them easily otherwise. Do you?

He's clearly saying there are circumstances where you can come out from being hidden and attack with advantage due to being hidden, and I have no idea what rule would support "but only from range and not melee" as the rules do not make any such distinction. You should be able to see someone 10' away from with a crossbow as easily as someone 10' away from you with a glaive or 5' away with a short sword, and he doesn't cite any rule that makes a distinction like that.

So how do you reconcile those two rulings without the "pop out" interpretation we use?

Great points.

FWIW our table allows the rogue to move up to his speed from a hidden location and still gain advantage on the attack. We partly attribute this to a sort-of "surprise" by someone who was hidden. It also makes sense because an hidden ambusher is not likely to have someone walk directly past them IMO. If full speed (not talking a dash or cunning action dash also!) is too much, maybe move up to half your speed and still attack with advantage?

 

[TrueBagelMan]

How can an imp help without making itself visible?

Invisibility wears off it makes a target do a saving throw or does an attack roll against them. It stays invisible if it uses the help action.